The Presbyters Project

Print:

ER 2082

Anonymous author of the "Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" says that the priests are expected to be morally superior to the laity. The mid-5th c., the Danubian provinces or Constantinople.

Homilia 40

Consydera autem, quomodo conuersatio bona praedicatoris, praedicationi suae praestat uirtutem, ut etiam indomabilia domet corda. Et ipsa quidem praedicatio iusta unam ex se habet uirtutem, duplicem autem habet, quando praedicatio iusta est, et ipse qui praedicat iustus. Sic dicit: Vos autem nec poenitentiam egistis, quasi publicani et meretrices credentes Ioanni: illi fecerunt quod maius est, isti autem neque poenitentiam egerunt, quod est minus. Nunquid publicani et meretrices credentes in Christum, sine poenitentia crediderunt. Neque enim possibile erat credere in eum sine poenitentia, qui baptismum poenitentiae praedicabat. Quod ergo uult dicere, tale st. Debueratis uos quidem sacerdotes quasi iustitiam scripturarum habentes, quasi populi praecessores ante populares credere Ioanni, ut omnes illi uestrum sequerentur exemplum: et non solum hoc non fecistis, sed nec postquam uidistis publicanos et meretrices credentes, nec tunc confusi estis, aut compuncti: quia publicani et meretrices crediderunt, qui credere non sperabantur: uos autem in duritia permansistis, qui uidebamini totius iustitiae sectatores, et ne tunc quidem poenitentiam egistis, ut crederetis, ut uel illorum exemplum sequeremini, quibus debueratis ipsi esse exemplum. Nunquid uos magis sine peccato eratis quam illi, ut illis credentibus ei, uos non crederetis Christo? Non, sed magis contemptores dei, magis superbi, et uanae gloriae amatores, et duri, qui nec praecedere illos uoluistis in fide, nec sequi. Et uere magna confusio est sacerdotum, et omnium clericorum, quando laici inueniuntur fideliores eis, aut iustiores. Quomodo autem non sit confusio esse illos inferiores laicis, quos etiam aequales esse confusio est?

(ed. Desiderius Erasmus 1530: 673; cf. PG 56, col. 850-51, ed. B. Montefaucon)

Homily 40

But consider how the good lifestyle of a preacher can offer strength to his preaching so as to tame even untamable hearts. And even righteous preaching has one power in itself, but it has a twofold power when both the preaching is righteous and the one who

preaches is righteous. So he says, "But you did not repent, as the tax collectors and harlots did when they believed John." The sinners did something, which was a greater thing, but the priests did not repent, which is a lesser thing. When the tax collectors and harlots believed in Christ, they did not believe without repentance, did they? For it was not even possible to believe in him without repentance when John preached a baptism of repentance. Therefore this is what he wants to say: "You, O priests, since you had the righteousness of the Scriptures and were the leaders of the people, you ought to have believed John before the ordinary people did so that all of them would follow your example. And yet not only did you not do this, but not even after you saw the tax collectors and harlots believing did you take the rebuke or repent, because the tax collectors and harlots believed when they did not hope to believe, but you remained in hardness of heart when you appeared to be people pursuing all righteousness and yet did not even repent so as to believe or to follow the example of those to whom you should have been an example. When they believed in the Christ and you still did not believe him, it surely was not because you were so much more without sin than them, was it? No, but you were rather despisers of God, arrogant, lovers of vainglory and hard-hearted, who neither wanted to go before them to faith or follow."

And truly there is a great dismay among priests and all clergy when lay people are found to be more faithful than them or more righteous. But how could there not be dismay that they are inferior to the laity when there is dismay when they are even equal?

(trans. Kellerman 2010: 312-313)

Place of event:

Region

Danubian provinces and Illyricum
East

City

Constantinople

About the source:

Author: Ps.-John Chrysostom
Title: Incomplete Commentary on Matthew, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum
Origin: Danubian provinces and IllyricumConstantinople (East),
Denomination: Arian

"Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" (Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum) is the name given to a Latin exegetical commentary on the Gospel of Matthew which has been handed down under the attribution to John Chrystostomus. The name of the Opus imperfectum also served to distinguish it from another commentary, John Chrystostomus' Homilies on Matthew (CPG 4424), which is complete. The Opus imperfectum does not contain a commentary on Matthew 8:10 to 10:15, Matthew 13:14 to 18:35, and Matthew 25:37 to the end of the Gospel. Therefore, the commentary can be divided into three parts: commentaries (called "homilies" in the mss.) 1-22 (up to Matthew 8:10), commentaries 24-31 (Matthew 10:13-13:13) and commentaries 32-54 (Matthew 19-25). In order to facilitate the description of the manuscript families and the transmission, Van Banning has proposed to divide the third section into two parts, so that he speaks of four parts in all:

- part A (hom. 1-22)

- part B (hom. 24-31)

- part C (hom. 32-46)

- part D (hom. 46-54)

Commentary (homily) 23, included in early modern editions (and printed in PG 56, 754-756), has been identified as one of the homilies to Matthew by Chromatius of Aquileia. New fragments of the commentary were identified by Étaix in 1974.

The editio princeps was published by Johannes Koelhof in Cologne in 1487. The next one, of much better quality, appeared in Venice in 1503. At that time, the work was still considered to be written by Chrysostom, but translated by an unknown person. The first doubts about its authorship were expressed by Andreas Cartander in the preface to the 1525 edition. The next editor, Erasmus of Rotterdam, made only minor changes to the text of the previous edition, but was the first to firmly reject the authorship of John Chrysostom on the basis of the text fragments he described as "Arian". He was also convinced that the commentary was not the translation from Greek, but was originally written in Latin, albeit possibly by a person who knew Greek.

To this day, the questions of authorship, date and the region in which the commentary was written remain unresolved, and many different hypotheses have been put forward in scholarship. Stiglmayr (1909, 1910) and Nautin (1972) argued that the Opus was a translation from Greek and suggested Timothy, the deacon of Constantinople mentioned in Socrates, as a possible author; Morin (1942) suggested that the author of the Opus could be identified with the translator of Origen's Homilies on Matthew into Latin; Meslin (1967: 174-180) attributed it to Bishop Maximinus, who translated it from the so-called Arian scholia in ms. Parisinus Latinus 8907; Schlatter (1988) suggested the attribution to Ananius of Celeda. The various passages reveal the author's hostility to Nicene theology, which maintains that the Father and the Son are consubstantial. He thus seems to have belonged to a non-Nicene theology that modern scholarship calls "Homoian" (referring to the creeds of Rimini 359 and Constantinople 360). Schlatter, on the other hand, focused on the passages he considered "Pelagian" and wanted to place the author in the context of the controversies about grace. Further research is needed to clarify the doctrinal position and theological context of the work, but one promising avenue is to search Homoian circles in fifth-century Constantinople or in the Danubian provinces.

The author has made an extensive use of the commentary on Matthew by Origen (Mali 1991) but he was also using a very wide range of sources both in Latin and Greek (see for example Dulaey 2004).

The author of the commentary mentions the Emperor Theodosius I as already deceased (PG 56, column 907). Furthermore, he refers to teaching held at the Capitol in Constantinople, and we know that the "university" there was founded in 425 (Codex Theodosianus 16.9.3). It is therefore likely that the enactment took place in the second half of the reign of Theodosius II (408-450).

However, the uniformity of the work is also not certain, and it has not yet been proven beyond doubt that parts A-D were written by the same person at the same time. Piemonte (1996) even claims that parts of the commentary were written in the 8th century by Johannes Scotus Eriugena.

The great obstacle in clarifying many questions about the nature of the text is the lack of a contemporary critical edition. Joop van Banning published an excellent introduction to the planned edition in 1988, in which he explains the intricacies of the manuscript tradition. The complexity of the tradition and the large number of manuscripts (about 200) contributed to the immense scope of the edition project, which is still not completed today (autumn 2023). The research group in Fribourg (Switzerland) is currently working on the edition of Part A, which will hopefully be completed in the next few years. Until then, the text can be read in early modern editions (1525, 1530) and in Patrologia Graeca 56, which reproduces the text of Bernard de Montefaucon's 17th century edition.

Edition:

Tertius tomus operum divi Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani in quo homiliae in Matthaeum et Ioannem praeterea commentarii digni lectu in Matthaeum incerto autore, ed. Desiderius Erasmus, Basilea 1530, 474-752

Patrologia Graeca 56, col. 611-946

Translation:

Incomplete Commentary to Matthew, ed. T.C. Oden, trans. J.A. Kellerman, 2 vols., Downers Grove 2010

Bibliography:

J. van Banning, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum: its provenance, theology and influence (D.Phil diss., University of Oxford, 1983)

J. van Banning, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum. Praefatio, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 87B, Turnhout 1988

M. Dulaey, "Les sources latines de l’Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum dans le commentaire de la parabole des dix vierges (Mt 25, 1–13)”, Vetera Christianorum 41 (2004), 295–311.

R. Étaix, "Fragments inédits de l’Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum”, Revue Bénédictine 84 (1974), 271–300.

F. Mali, Das "Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum" und sein Verhältnis zu den Matthäuskommentaren von Origenes und Hieronymus, Innsbruck Wien 1991.

M. Meslin, Les Ariens d’Occident: 335–430, Paris 1967

G. Morin, "Les homélies latines sur S. Matthieu attribuées à Origène”, Revue Bénédictine 54 (1942), 3–11.

P. Nautin, "M. Meslin. Les Ariens d’Occident (335-430) [compte rendu]," Revue de l’histoire des religions 177 (1970), 74-80.

P. Nautin, "L’Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum et les Ariens de Constantinople”, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 67 (1972), 380–408; 745–766.

G.A. Piemonte, "Recherches sur les „Tractatus in Matheum” attribués à Jean Scot”, [in :] Iohannes Scottus Eriugena. The Bible and Hermeneutics, 1996, 321–350.

F.W. Schlatter, “The Author of the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum,” Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), 365-375

F. W. Schlatter, “The Pelagianism of the ‘Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum”’, Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987), 267-284

J. Stiglmayr, "Ist das Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum ursprünglich lateinisch abgefaßt?”, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 33 (1909), 594–597

J. Stiglmayr, "Das Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum: Zur Frage über Grandsprache, Entstehungszeit, Heimat und Verfasser des Berkes”, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 34 (1910), 1–38

Categories:

Described by a title - Sacerdos/ἱερεύς

Theoretical considerations - On priesthood

Pastoral activity - Preaching

Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL: M. Szada, Presbyters in the Late Antique West, ER2082, http://www.presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=2082